Obama, MSM Tacking to ‘Foreign Affairs and National Security’?

If there is an area of Obama’s oeuvre in which he appears weaker — and more prone to attacks he simply cannot defend against — than the economy and unemployment, it is the epochal rise of Islamism and neo-Sovietism that occurred on his watch and with his blessing.

Uh, cue the TelePrompTer? The following went up at 11:35 p.m. on Thursday, moments after the GOP convention wrapped up. Note that the editorial is titled “Mr. Romney Reinvents History”, yet the html link reads “http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/the-hidden-subject-in-tampa.html”. The “Reinvents” part refers to Romney’s inference that the country was willing to unite behind the newly elected Obama in 2008. This is the lede on the editorial, though it seems like a quick add-on, as the rest of the piece focuses on “foreign affairs”, which was apparently “the hidden subject in Tampa”, prefab.

So the NY Times goes with a prewritten editorial published moments after a speech, and it focuses on topics that were hardly mentioned during the speech.

Folks, this is a PR rollout, not editorializing.

But seriously — this is the next play? Are we in the “NBA garbage-time” phase already, with Coach Axelrod pulling his starters? “Checking in for Race Card and White Misogyny … it’s Foreign Affairs, and National Security. Give it up for Race Card!”

Mitt Romney wrapped the most important speech of his life, for Thursday night’s session of his convention, around an extraordinary reinvention of history — that his party rallied behind President Obama when he won in 2008, hoping that he would succeed. “That president was not the choice of our party,” he said. “We are a good and generous people who are united by so much more than divides us.”

The truth, rarely heard this week in Tampa, Fla., is that the Republicans charted a course of denial and obstruction from the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated, determined to deny him a second term by denying him any achievement, no matter the cost to the economy or American security — even if it meant holding the nation’s credit rating hostage to a narrow partisan agenda.

Mr. Romney’s big speech, delivered in a treacly tone with a strange misty smile on his face suggesting he was always about to burst into tears, was of a piece with the rest of the convention. Republicans have offered precious little of substance but a lot of bromides (“A free world is a more peaceful world!”) meant to convey profundity and take passive-aggressive digs at President Obama. But no subjects have received less attention, or been treated with less honesty, than foreign affairs and national security — and Mr. Romney’s banal speech was no exception.

It’s easy to understand why the Republicans have steered clear of these areas. While President Obama is vulnerable on some domestic issues, the Republicans have no purchase on foreign and security policy. In a television interview on Wednesday, Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, could not name an area in which Mr. Obama had failed on foreign policy.

For decades, the Republicans were able to present themselves as the tougher party on foreign and military policy. Mr. Obama has robbed them of that by being aggressive on counterterrorism and by flexing military and diplomatic muscle repeatedly and effectively.

Mitt Romney has tried to sound tough, but it’s hard to see how he would act differently from Mr. Obama except in ways that are scary — like attacking Iran, or overspending on defense in ways that would not provide extra safety but would hurt the economy.

Before Thursday night, the big foreign policy speeches were delivered by Senator John McCain and Ms. Rice. Mr. McCain was specific on one thing: Mr. Obama’s plan to start pulling out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014 is too rapid. While he does not speak for Mr. Romney, his other ideas were unnerving, like suggesting that the United States should intervene in Syria.

Mr. Romney reportedly considered Ms. Rice as a running mate, and she seems to have real influence. But Ms. Rice is a reminder of the colossal errors and deceptions of George W. Bush’s administration. She was a central player in the decision to invade Iraq and the peddling of fantasies about weapons of mass destruction. She barely mentioned Iraq in her speech and spoke not at all about Afghanistan. She was particularly ludicrous when she talked about keeping America strong at home so it could be strong globally, since she was part of the team that fought two wars off the books and entirely on borrowed money.

Ms. Rice said the United States has lost its “exceptionalism,” but she never gave the slightest clue what she meant by that — a return to President Bush’s policy of preventive and unnecessary war?

She and Mr. McCain both invoked the idea of “peace through strength,” but one of the few concrete proposals Mr. Romney has made — spending 4 percent of G.D.P. on defense — would weaken the economy severely. Mr. McCain was not telling the truth when he said Mr. Obama wants to cut another $500 billion from military spending. That amount was imposed by the Republicans as part of the extortion they demanded to raise the debt ceiling.

Ms. Rice said American allies need to know where the United States stands and that alliances are vitally important. But the truth is that Mr. Obama has repaired those alliances and restored allies’ confidence in America’s position after Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice spent years tearing them apart and ruining America’s reputation in the world.

The one alliance on which there is real debate between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama is with Israel. But it is not, as Mr. Romney and his supporters want Americans to believe, about whether Mr. Obama is a supporter of Israel. Every modern president has been, including Mr. Obama. Apart from outsourcing his policy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on settlements, it’s not clear what Mr. Romney would do differently.

But after watching the Republicans for three days in Florida, that comes as no surprise.

David Steinberg is the New York City Editor of PJ Media. Follow his tweets at @DavidSPJM.

Click here to view the 7 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

7 Comments, 7 Threads

1.
marco73

So now Foreign Affairs is going to be the winner for Obama?
Last I saw, Foreign Affairs was not even in the top 10 issues of concern to the American public. But then, I’m not really in the target audience for the NYT.

So at the Demo convention, all those women are going to ditch their abortion speeches, and will give speeches on how fabulous our Foreign Affairs have been since 2008. Women in Iran and Syria were not available for comment.

Eva, quick, get Tony on the phone – you know Americans are suckers for a renewed love story.

My take-away is this: in typical double-speak fasion, the radical Left sees a large weakness in the divisiveness of Obama – and they now seek to create another victim/victimizer hater/lover narrative with the predictable heros and villains. In other words, though Obama is the one constantly spewing class warfare tropes, he is the uniter – and the Republicans who are deliverately stressing unity in America are obviously the dividers.

This is the commie traitor framing we must demolish on the Left… We on the Right often seek logic and reason – while probing for the tree of Foreign Policy as the next attack in the NYT’s screed above, you miss the forest of obfuscation, whivh is the REAL agenda of the Left. This articla could be about anything, as long as the reader leaves with the underlying nugget that Obama, despite all his hateful rhetoric and infinite contempt for the Right and non-stop lectures about what’s wrong about America, is nevertheless the uniter, while “pastey white people” talking about families, values, small government, true empowerment of the poor, a united America, and love-of-country, are actually talking about how much they hate women, how much they hate blacks, how much they hate children, and how much want this nation ti fail….

If the truth in advertising laws applied to politicians, all Obama could put on his stickers would be “Obama 2012: Because 4 years of failure and corruption aren’t enough!”

This sounds like the latest attempt to execute their “squirrel!” strategy. Obama can’t run on his record so all he can do is attempt to divert attention away from it. Even if they want to change attention to foreign policy and national security, Obama’s record is very weak.

Man, I wish election day were next week. I’ll be glad with all of this is over.